Tuesday, June 05, 2018

Islamic terrorist to be given funeral in Catholic Church

On May 29, the man killed three people in the centre of Liège.

The Church of On, in Marche-En-Famenne: this is where the funeral of Benjamin Herman, the killer of three people in the attack on Liege, will take place, according to L'Avenir.

St Laurent

The assailant's body, killed by the police shortly after committing these crimes, will be buried in the village cemetery.

The priest of the village of On, François Barbieux, spoke about the approach of the family of the one who is radicalized in prison: "The family is quite aware of the unacceptable nature of the acts, but it must mourn 'a son, a uncle, a grandson, who died tragically, in the acts he did before he died and in the way he died. "

The police will be present en masse to provide security at the funeral.


Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Top German paediatrician finds outcome of Alfie Evans case completely incomprehensible

Article which has just appeared in Die Welt- the top German newspaper.  They interview Professor Haas who is the head of the Child Cardiology and Paediatric Intensive Medicine Unit at Munich University Hospital.  He says what is happening would be totally unacceptable in Germany given the history of Nazi times.

Alfie Evans is sick. He's wrestling with death. The parents want to treat him with the help of German doctors, but they are not allowed to. Intensive care physician, Nikolaus Haas explains why the case makes him angry.

The little Alfie Evans has a serious illness, he struggles with death. His parents want to have him treated outside the UK, but they cannot. The clinic has gone to court against them and got a judgement in their favour. German doctors are also involved in the case. Professor Nikolaus Haas personally examined Alfie, he knows the medical history and has also prepared a report for the trial.

WELT: Professor Haas, you have contact with the parents of Alfie Evans. How did that happen?
Nikolaus Haas: The family or the lawyer team contacted us, and the court has appointed me as a reviewer. The doctors had told them that they in England did not want to do anything for their child and end the life-support measures. Also a transport to another hospital was forbidden to the parents, on the grounds that the child was too sick and this would endanger the child. They then searched for an intensive care service and found us and my senior physician Matthias Hübner, who offers to fly children of all ages in the company of a doctor specialising in pediatric intensive medicine and two sisters appropriately trained in paediatric intensive nursing throughout the Welt

WELT: Do not the British have such a service?
Haas: Yes. But they do not want the family to use it.

WELT: Why not?
Haas: That's a question of the system ... But in turn. The family then asked Mr. Hübner to see Alfie to see if he is transportable.

WELT: The British doctors were obviously not impressed by the colleague from Germany ...?
Haas: The hospital said quite openly, we do not want another doctor to look at the child. The family then said that we bring Mr. Hübner as a friend. It was like that in the end. He introduced himself as a doctor but the local team refused to speak with him. He then examined the child and took a look at the medical documents that are available to the parents themselves.

WELT: That's enough?
Haas: But surely. As an experienced pediatric intensive care physician, they do not need to read long files. You just look, is that a stable patient, yes or no. Alfie Evans was completely stable then, and also when I looked at the child. Alfie was correctly ventilated, he did not move, had seizures only occasionally. Mr Hübner then confirmed in writing that this child is fit to fly. Of course, that did not suit the hospital at all.

WELT: Why not?
Haas: Well, the colleagues say yes, this kid is so sick, it cannot be flown anywhere, that's too dangerous. Mr. Hübner then asked, so where can the child be treated? There was the connection to Italy to a children's clinic in the grounds of the Vatican. Even their doctors had examined Alfie. But these colleagues have also said that he may be too ill for transport.

WELT: How did it continue?
Haas: We also had a ready concept in consultation with Alfie's team to bring him to Munich. There he should be temporarily cared for. Thereafter, it was planned to send him to a nursing home in Poland for further care. But then the clinic said no and complained. Emotions were raised. Even the Pope has joined in, Alfie was offered Italian citizenship. In vain. And now a judge says after the completion of the respiration: You may go home, but not leave the country to have the child treated elsewhere, at your own expense? That's crazy!

WELT: How would Alfie be treated in Germany?
Haas: That's clear: if you have a child that is medically balanced, you still have to take care of these patients. We say that these patients should not lie in the intensive care unit, but should be optimally cared for. For example, in a facility or at home, depending on how the parents wish or are able.

WELT: How difficult is that?
Haas: For the patients who cannot breathe enough themselves, a respiratory aid must be made possible. In addition, the diet must be ensured, especially if patients cannot swallow. And it must be ensured that medicines can be supplied, usually via a nasogastric tube. All this is standard. Every major children's hospital has about a dozen such children who are severely handicapped and then cared for in the nursing home or at home. Total routine. In Germany, Alfie would have been at home for a year with such care!

WELT: But?
Haas: The English health system does not want that. Why not? I can only speculate, but as I understand it, the National Health Service is the sacred cow in England. The doctors say that what we do is right, period. And of course, such a treatment of an intensive care patient outside the clinic is about three times as expensive as in the clinic. When they set a precedent, they unleash an avalanche that costs a considerable amount of money.

WELT: Is that the only problem?
Haas: No, because now we come to the system question. For the trial before the Court of Appeal, where the hospital wanted to prevail, I had to give an opinion. There, I have allowed myself to write as an explanation for our management in Germany: We have learned in Germany because of our history, that there are things that you do not do with severely disabled patients. A society must be able to care for these patients equally and not decide to end life-support measures against the explicit desire of the family. But this was perceived as an inappropriate and rebellious, purely personal opinion. It was said that it did not matter.

"One is not so alone then"

WELT: It is not the first case in the UK - the late Charlie Gard had a similar fate.
Haas: Charlie's diagnosis was clear. He had a disease in which the energy building blocks of each cell were broken. No treatment had a chance of success, the child was brain dead, so to speak. Alfie is anything but brain dead. Yes, he is severely handicapped, he has a condition which one does not know exactly what it is. In any case, it is a so-called neurodegenerative disease, where the brain becomes ill over time and gradually perishes.

WELT: Could Alfie do better than British doctors say?
Haas: No. And there is probably no treatment that can cure Alfie. The question is, how do you deal with it at the end of your life? And nobody knows how long he can live. He could live at home for half a year, with appropriate support, maybe shorter, maybe longer. In Germany - but also in other countries of the Welt - we would now say: "How it goes further with him, is also a personal decision of the family." If the parents say we want the other way and also the dying process of the child at home then a society must be able to enable and accept that. Especially if you say we have nothing to offer you.

WELT: Nevertheless, there are examples where the best interests of the child would really be endangered by parents' decisions, right?
Haas: Yes. For example, if the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and reject a blood transfusion, for example. Or if you have children with leukaemia and you want to treat the disease with homeopathy. Then you have to deprive the parents of custody, because there is a good treatment for the child. The state has to intervene, for the benefit of the child. But in England, in this particular case, the system says we're always right, and it's better for that child to die than for someone else to take care of the child. This is not understandable for me.

WELT: Too much rationality, too little ethics?
Haas: Difficult question. For that I know the system too little. However, this National Health Service system is apparently so unquestioned that no second opinion is allowed. If you want to get a different opinion in Germany with another doctor, one does not complain as a clinic and say death is reasonable. That's completely irrational! Again, there is no cure for this child in my view. But the remaining time must be managed reasonably. The child does not suffer, after all, from what I know and have seen. Interestingly, the colleagues say - and this is also the view of the judge - that the patient is in a neuro-vegetative status. This means that he gets nothing from his environment and has no pain. Where is the logic? If he is not in pain, what can you do wrong?

WELT: The machines are now switched off. But Alfie did not die, Alfie breathes. Could it torment him?
Haas: This is unlikely because his brain has been severely damaged by the confirmed investigations. But you can not be 100 percent sure. Breathing itself is a pure brain function without emotions. But beware: Just because Alfie is breathing does not mean that the brain has recovered. Of course, the cerebrum continues to be massively damaged.

WELT: Is the paediatric medicine of British colleagues worse than those in Germany?
Haas: No. The English make that outstanding. But when dealing with some severely disabled people, they obviously have a different approach. Our ethical understanding in Germany is different, I mean - thank God. The logic that it is better for the child to die than that someone else looks at it, and even to sue in court: This is an unimaginable behaviour for me.

WELT: But surely there's reasons for that to happen, right?
Haas: Well. The National Health Service and the judges are in my opinion both parts of a self-contained system. If this case changed, the system would have a significant problem. Because then a precedent is created, and other relatives could complain or try to follow a similar path.

WELT: That leads to absurd situations, right?
Haas: Exactly. I met another handicapped child in the same hospital in England, a girl, about 18 years old. She actually been in hospital since the beginning of his life. She gets air through a tracheotomy and is artificially ventilated and nourished. According to his father, however, she may not leave the hospital permanently. The doctors told the parents: If you take this child with you and there are problems then we will not treat this child here in the hospital anymore. The parents of this patient are now well trained. They can take care of the child, they drive with him through Liverpool, even go shopping with their daughter. But they cannot go home. It certainly relates to the cost. Home care is about three times more expensive than one in the hospital.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

The deep Catholic faith of Arnaud Beltrame

Death of Arnaud Beltrame: the tribute of the priest who supported him at the hour of his death

Arnaud Beltrame died giving his life for that of a woman.

Tribute. Lieutenant-Colonel Arnaud Beltrame was a Catholic. He was preparing, with his fiancée, Marielle, to receive the sacrament of marriage from the hands of Father Jean-Baptiste, one of the Canons Regular of the Mother of God of Lagrasse Abbey. It is him who joined Marielle on Friday night, at the bedside of Arnaud, a few hours before his death. He was able to give him the sacrament of the sick and the apostolic blessing in articulo mortis. He then spoke at length with his fiancée before giving him communion. He provides a text, in which he pays tribute to the one who the whole of France celebrates today the heroic act.

Testimony of a Canon of the Abbey of Lagrasse (Aude), the day of his death, 24 March 2018.

In Arnaud Beltrame, the French have received a model.

It is the chance of a meeting during a visit to our abbey which is a historical monument, that I meet Lieutenant-Colonel Arnaud Beltrame and Marielle, who he had just married civilly on 27 August 2016. We got on together very quickly and they asked me to prepare them for the religious wedding that I was going to celebrate near Vannes on June 9th. We spent many hours working on the basics of married life for almost two years. I had just blessed their home on 16 December and we were finalizing their canonical marriage record. The very beautiful declaration of intention of Arnaud reached me 4 days before her heroic death.

This young couple regularly came to the abbey to participate in Masses, services and teachings, especially to a group of residences, Notre Dame de Cana. They were part of the Narbonne team. They came again last Sunday.

Intelligent, sporty, voluble and lively, Arnaud spoke readily of his conversion. Born into a family with little practice, he experienced a genuine conversion around 2008, at almost 33 years old. He received the first communion and confirmation after 2 years of catechumenate, in 2010.

After a pilgrimage to Sainte-Anne-d'Auray in 2015, where he asked the Virgin Mary to meet the woman of his life, he became friends with Marielle, whose faith is deep and discreet. The engagement was celebrated at the Breton abbey of Timadeuc at Easter 2016.

Passionate about the gendarmerie, he has always had a passion for France, her greatness, her history and her Christian roots that he rediscovered with his conversion. By substituting himself for the hostages, he is probably motivated by commitment to his gallantry as an officer, because for him, being a policeman meant protecting. But he knew the incredible risk that he was taking.

He also knows the promise of religious marriage he made to Marielle, who is already his wife and who he loved tenderly, as I witnessed. So? Was he allowed to take such a risk? It seems to me that only his faith can explain the madness of this sacrifice which is today the admiration of all. He knew, as Jesus told us, that "There is no greater love than to give one's life for one's friends. » (John 15.13). He knew that if his life began to belong to Marielle, it was also to God, to France, to his brothers in danger of death. I believe that only a Christian faith animated by charity could ask for this superhuman sacrifice.

I was able to join him at the hospital in Carcassonne around 9pm last night. The gendarmes and the doctors or nurses opened the way with remarkable delicacy. He was alive but unconscious. I was able to give him the Sacrament of the Sick and the apostolic blessing at the moment of death. Marielle responded to these beautiful liturgical formulas.

We were Friday of the Passion, just before the opening of Holy Week. I had just prayed the office of none and the Stations of the Cross for him. I ask the caregiver if he can have near him a Marian medal, that of the rue du Bac in Paris.

Comprehensive and professional, a nurse, stares at his shoulder. I could not marry him as an article awkwardly said, because he was unconscious. Arnaud will never now have children in life. But his astonishing heroism will, I believe, inspire many imitators, ready to give of themselves to France and her Christian joy.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Pope- "Do not read blogs that call me a heretic"

Since the Second Vatican Council, there are resistance to reforms in the Church, says the Pope. They tried to relativize and dilute the council. How he himself deals with this resistance, the Jesuit Francis let be known in a conversation with friars.

Pope Francis ignored in his own words denigration by ultra-conservative critics on the Internet. He knew the resistance against him and the groups behind it, he said in a Thursday meeting with Jesuits in Santiago de Chile during his trip to Chile on 16 January. Further, Francis said, "For mental health reasons, I do not read these internet sites of the so-called resistance."

If he experiences resistance, he tries to engage in dialogue, if that is possible, according to Francis. But some resistance comes from people "who believe they are in possession of true doctrine and accuse you of being heretical." Such resistance is regrettable, but it is necessary to proceed further. "If I cannot recognize spiritual benevolence in these persons, I simply pray for them."

At the end of September last year conservative critics of the pope spread a "Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis" ("A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies "). In the letter, which met with approval above all in conservative blogs, the authors claimed that Francis had promoted "directly or indirectly" heretical attitudes to marriage, morality, and sacramental doctrine that differed from church doctrines. "We respectfully insist that your Holiness publicly rejects these theses," the letter said.

Resistance has existed since the Second Vatican Councl

The conversation with Jesuits in Chile was published in the text on the website of the Italian Jesuit magazine, "Civilta Cattolica". The Pope approved the transcript, the journal said.

The resistance that existed after the Second Vatican Council is still there today, the Pope continued. They tried to relativise and dilute the Council. Some people told him that resistance was normal when someone wanted to make changes. After all, it is a great temptation to say, "what we all have experienced", "that it has always been done that way".

At the same time the Pope admitted that not all difficulties should be prematurely labelled as resistance. One must always take into account that it also contained a "grain of truth" and the resistance could go back to a misunderstanding. "That also helps me to relativise many things," says Francis.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Judge sentencing refugee who threatened to kill a Christian convert removes Cross from court

Judge removes crucifix permanently from his courtroom
A Bavarian judge was required to judge a suspected Islamist. He decides to remove the cross from the courtroom. The "educational measure" triggers criticism - also at a political level.

For a case against a young asylum seeker from Afghanistan, a judge has taken down the Cross in the courtroom. The 21-year-old had to answer in court because he is said to have threatened an Afghan compatriot with death, because this person has become a Christian and went to church on Sunday. The district court Miesbach in Bavaria confirmed the process.

Politicians are outraged, the judge reaching angry phone calls and emails. But he lets the criticism rebound. And even goes one step further: He announces that he will not hang the Cross again in the future.

The Miesbach judge, Klaus-Jürgen Schmidt, told the Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR). On the one hand, religious symbols are generally not required in the courtroom. On the other hand, he saw the Cross as unhelpful in the trial.

He thought, "How do I educate a young man who is claimed to deny this Christian the right to live and that is a Taliban, to refrain from believing that a jihad exists between Christians and Islamists?", Schmidt said. For that he had thought it sensible not to condemn him under the visible Cross. The clear message: In Germany, religion is not above the law of the world and not above the judiciary.

Bavaria's former Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber (CSU) took a critical view of the matter: "Whoever threatens someone with death because this person has become a Christian, should be able to see the Cross in his eye," he told the "Bild" newspaper. "I think the taking down of the cross is a false signal," said the politician. Deputy Bavarian Prime Minister, Ilse Aigner (CSU) described the procedure as "highly insensitive to the feelings of the victims," according to the newspaper.

Schmidt told the BR that he was also accused of abandoning a "cultural-religious symbol of sovereignty". In addition, he would already be blamed for future actions of the man. The critics would not consider that he had considered the man for the maximum penalty. The prosecutor's office had demanded far less.

Legally, the case is clear. The judge has used a margin of discretion. Unlike in school, there is no legal provision in Bavaria obliging the judiciary to place crosses in meeting rooms. The fact that crucifixes are usually there is "an expression of the Christian tradition of our state," explained the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice.

Cross does not violate state neutrality
Since when this is so, he did not wish to say. However, the presence of the Crosses does not violate the obligation of state neutrality. Nobody, neither visitors nor witnesses, trial representatives or parties to the dispute, has to "identify with the ideas or institutions symbolically embodied therein". According to the Federal Constitutional Court, each judge can have themselves remove the Cross if those involved in the trial see their freedom of belief impaired.

In the future Schmidt wants to do without the Cross in the courtroom. The judiciary is independent of religions. In addition, it was planned to amend the Bavarian Judicial Law to the effect that neither cross nor headscarf should be worn by judges in the trial. Therefore, he considered the Cross in the courtroom inappropriate. According to "Bild" it has already found a new place: "I will hang it up in the corridor now," said Schmidt.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Cardinal attacks anonymous book on the Pope

Cardinal Marx: No intrigues against the pope in the Vatican

The Munich Cardinal Reinhard Marx has put into perspective reports of alleged persistent criticism of Pope Francis . He could "not identify a weakness of authority" and also not recognise "that a group of curial officials in the back room plots the downfall of the Pope," said Marx at his traditional year-end meeting on Friday in the Munich Press Club. "The Pope is one who governs, that does not please everyone," added the Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference. In particular, "some of the very conservative circles" do not want to accept that.

Marx said he did not want to deal in conspiracy theories, but one would have to ask the question of who has an interest in damaging the Pope. He was in favour of an open discussion, but "anonymous books do not help". He was also worried that the criticism of Francis was in part "very much geared to the reputation of the person". He has said to the Pope, "You know that 90 percent of the people of God are behind you." Francis gives him, Marx, the impression of a "free man who goes on his own path unerringly".

About the Pope, "it's not just about style issues," the cardinal affirmed, "but also a new way of looking at things, without any theological break." Francis also, in the fifth year of his pontificate, in observed worldwide. People were interested in what he said, "even in subordinate clauses and small interviews." For him, Marx, it continues to be "a great pleasure to work for this pope". As a member of the nine-member Cardinals commission, the Munich archbishop is one of the closest co-workers of the church leader. "


Simply untrue.  For if it were true, Catholicism simply would not continue to exist.